8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Sorry opting out of the CBA was not an act of bad faith. It was a business decision - the owners were never in love with the CBA in the first place and had a legal right to opt out. I believe the option was unconditional and a business decision either side was free to make.

I'm sorry, either side? Did the players have that option to opt out of the CBA? Sure they had the right, and to each his own. It's a gamble they are taking too.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

To me, however, the "Big Lie" is still the players decertification. The players still are acting like a union, still want a global settlement and, despite walking, talking and smelling like a union, decertified in order to circumvent the applicable labor laws.

The players are acting like a group of collective people. It's fine if big businesses use all these loopholes to avoid tax evasion and other criminal activities, but let the workers find a loophole and BURN THEM AT THE STAKE!!

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The owners exercised a legal option in a legal fashion consistent with the intent of the applicable agreement.

Nope. Their whole cartel is one big Monopoly. There isn't technically anything "legal" about it. The only way it exists is because the players agree to it.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The players exercised a legal option in an illegal fashion inconsistent with the underlying agreeement and with the intent to circumvent the applicable law.

Proof? Looks like everything they've done has been legal. Have any issues about their blockade, talk to this guy.



You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Oh, the owners have done everything legal (even though the courts disagreed with your stance...see the TV deal as proof) but you say the players did it illegal. You sure you aren't in our White House? Sounds like some sort of sideways spin they put onto things. You can't say one is right and the other is wrong.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The owners have since left two solid compromise offers on the table and DeA**hole Smith is still playing the "poor poor pitiful us" card.

So please show me these details on the "solid compromise offers" you speak of.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

As always in all of this, my disclaimer is that there is plenty of blame for both sides in this.

...and most of it goes to the guys who started this. Owners.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I'm sorry, either side? Did the players have that option to opt out of the CBA? Sure they had the right, and to each his own. It's a gamble they are taking too.

To be direct: yes, the players had that right, as well.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I'm sorry, either side? Did the players have that option to opt out of the CBA? Sure they had the right, and to each his own. It's a gamble they are taking too.

The players agreed to a CBA that allowed the owners to opt out without any justification necessary. I am not sure how the owners exercising a negotiated contract right is in any way improper. Show me where, any where, in the CBA agreed to by the players, that the owners are required to show cause, injury or other justification prior to exercising their negotiated rights.

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

The players are acting like a group of collective people. It's fine if big businesses use all these loopholes to avoid tax evasion and other criminal activities, but let the workers find a loophole and BURN THEM AT THE STAKE!!

Loopholes I get. I got no problem with legal loopholes. Hell, I love'em. The players, however, aren't taking advantage of a loophole. Read the CBA - (see CRed's post earlier). The players union, essentially, agreed not to decertify as a means of circumventing federal labor laws. Despite this agreement, they decertify with the specific intent of filing suit and attempting to gain leverage by intentionally circumventing their earlier agreement and established labor law.

This is not a "loophole", it is a flagrant violation of the CBA and federal labor laws. This was the basis of the NFL's opposition to the District Court's injunction and, according to the 8th Circuit when it overruled the lower court, is a claim upon which the NFL is likely to succeed.

Had the players followed the CBA and allowed the matter to proceed through the NLRB or other applicable (as agreed by the players union), I would have no beef with them.

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Nope. Their whole cartel is one big Monopoly. There isn't technically anything "legal" about it. The only way it exists is because the players agree to it.

Nothing technically legal about it? I am assuming your using hyperbole, but, if not, the sheer unbridled ignorance of this remark makes a response impossible. Short answer: The NFL and its teams are legal entities that can choose to do business anyway they so choose subject to the appropriate lablor laws which the players availed themselves of by forming a union.

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Proof? Looks like everything they've done has been legal. Have any issues about their blockade, talk to this guy.

Their decertification, I suggest, was illegal and forced the owners hand into a lockout. Ultimately, the courts will make a determination as to the decertification's legality but, based on the 8th Circuit's recent ruling, it is likely they will find the decertification illegal.

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Oh, the owners have done everything illegal (even though the courts disagreed with your stance...see the TV deal as proof) but you say the players did it illegal. You sure you aren't in our White House? Sounds like some sort of sideways spin they put onto things. You can't say one is right and the other is wrong.

Let's get something straight - I think the owner's voided the CBA out of greed, they were unhappy with their cut and wanted to increase it. This does not mean what they did was illegal or a violation of the CBA or applicable law. It is legal to be greedy.

The players actions also demonstrate a level of greed - not nearly as much as the owners. However, in pursuing their perfectly legal greed, the players, IMO (and apparently the 8th Circuit's) are using illegal methods.

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

So please show me these details on the "solid compromise offers" you speak of.

Go look it up. By all accounts, the March 11th proposal met the players demands half way. As I understand it, the most recent proposal is more favorable.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I'm sorry, either side? Did the players have that option to opt out of the CBA? Sure they had the right, and to each his own. It's a gamble they are taking too.




The players are acting like a group of collective people. It's fine if big businesses use all these loopholes to avoid tax evasion and other criminal activities, but let the workers find a loophole and BURN THEM AT THE STAKE!!



Nope. Their whole cartel is one big Monopoly. There isn't technically anything "legal" about it. The only way it exists is because the players agree to it.



Proof? Looks like everything they've done has been legal. Have any issues about their blockade, talk to this guy.



You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Oh, the owners have done everything legal (even though the courts disagreed with your stance...see the TV deal as proof) but you say the players did it illegal. You sure you aren't in our White House? Sounds like some sort of sideways spin they put onto things. You can't say one is right and the other is wrong.



So please show me these details on the "solid compromise offers" you speak of.



...and most of it goes to the guys who started this. Owners.

#1- Yes the players had the option to back out.

#2- Yes the players have the right to file as a group. I think it's what the owners hoped would happen if they locked out. Cuts down on individual law suits.

#3- Monopoly? I don't think so. Prior to the UFL, yes, but the players do have more then one option now. They may not get as good a pay but they have options.

#4- Proof? You act as though the Judge has already ruled and said the players are not doing anything wrong? Lets look at the chronology of whats happened;
A- The Players decertified prior to the end of the CBA.
B- The Owners (forced) to lockout due to Union decertifying.
c- Players sued over lockout.
D- Owners sued over presumed illegal Union decertification.

So to fill in the gaps... the players chose to let the CBA expire when they chose not to stay the 6 hours and try to talk. The players chose to let the CBA expire (opt out) when they did not stay and request an extension to work things out.

Did the players decertify previously? yes, but they did it legally. They waited until "AFTER" the first CBA expired and chose to decertify which is supposedly legal under the law, but this time around the Union chose to decertify "PRIOR" to the CBA expiring to as the players put it "get the upper hand." But this "MIGHT" be illegal. All thats happened so far is that a Judge looked at the players case first because it was filed first and the Judge felt the players had a right to work. In reality one Judge should be listening to all the information and making a decision. If this happened the Judge would have tabled the players case and listened to the owners case first, which is the first event. If the players were wrong and decertified illegally then all the rest is moot. If they were not breaking the law then the next subject is the owners and their lockout. The problem is this decision won't be made until June 3rd.

The players may not be doing anything wrong in your eyes but guess what? the 8th Circuit agreed the owners were not doing anything wrong either when they kept the lockout in place.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

#3- Monopoly? I don't think so. Prior to the UFL, yes, but the players do have more then one option now. They may not get as good a pay but they have options.

It isn't about being a monopoly. It is about monopolizing the market. Collusion would fit under the act of monopolizing, but they have an exemption to that, so some OTHER act that would consistitute monopolizing the market. The UFL's existence is irrelevant to the matter unless the NFL is trying actively wipe it out.